Law:

Section:

This civil revision has arisdn out of a suit brought by respondents Nos.1 to 9, Mst. Hameeda Begum and others, against the petitioner, Ghulam Rasool, and respondent No. 10 Muhammad Sarwar. In the said suit, in which the respondent No. 10 and the petitioner were defendants Nos. I and 2 respectively, the validity of a sale-deed had been challenged by respondents Nos. I to 9. These respondents were plaintiffs therein. Besides the said defendants, one Ismail was defendant No. 3 in the suit but as, process fee had not been deposited for his service, the suit was dismissed against him. The petitioner, who was in fact, the contesting defendant, made an application for rejection of the plaint stating that the plaintiffs in the. suit had executed a document known as TASHAEH NAMA in which they had ratified the sale deed in' question. The said TASHAEH NAMA was a registered deed which had been placed on record by the petitioner (defendant No. 2). The Civil Judge, who was seized of the suit, accepted the application of the petitioner and injected the plaint, under Order VII, rule 11, of the Code of Civil Procedure, with the following observations:-- "Copy of the impugned sale-deed date * d 15-2-1989 and agreement sell dated 1.2-12~1988 in favour of defendants Nos. 2 and 3 respectively have also been placed on record. The perusal of the Correction deed ('Tesih Nama') dated .14-9-1989, roves that the plaintiffs have entered into a Correction deed ('Tesih Nama') with defendant No. 2 and have rectified the impugned sale-deed executed in favour of defendant No.2 by defendant No. 1. As such the cause of action against defendant No.2 has ceased to exist as defendant No. 1 is a pro forma defendant and suit against defendant No. 3 had already been dismissed vide order dated 6-2-1990 by this Court for non-deposit of process fee. This Correction deed ('Tesih Nama') is a duly registered public document and presumption of truth s attached to it. This Correction deed ('Tesih Nama') dated 14-9-1989 has not been challenged by the plaintiffs so far."

2. Plaintiffs in the suit, therefore, went in appeal before an Additional District Judge. The learned Additional District Judge accepted the appeal, set aside the judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Judge and remanded the suit to him for proceeding further in accordance with law.

-3 View taken by the learned Additional District Judge was that the TASHEH NAMA was a material extraneous to the contents of plaint and, therefore, the trial Court was precluded from taking that document into consideration, for rejecting the plaint. Further reasoning of the learned appellate Court for accepiing the appeal makes the following reading:--